On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Amila!
>
> Amila Suriarachchi wrote:
> > [...]
>
>> Here the idea is to place the MercurySequenceIDDispatcher and
>> MercuryDuplicationHandler between the AddressingBasedDispatcher and
>> AddressingValidationHandler.
>>
>> if I engaged modules in this order
>> serviceClient.engageModule("addressing");
>> serviceClient.engageModule("Mercury");
>>
>> this works fine. But if I engaged modules in
>>
>> serviceClient.engageModule("Mercury");
>> serviceClient.engageModule("addressing");
>>
>> Both MercurySequenceIDDispatcher and MercuryDuplicationHandler are placed
>> as last handlers of the Addressing phase. which is wrong.
>>
>> Here the phaserules are works fine only if handlers referred by the phase
>> rules has already deployed.
>>
>
> Yup. This is because I wanted to make the minimum changes necessary to get
> the dynamic phases working, so the code that actually deploys the *Handlers*
> is still the old stuff in Phase, which does not remember forward-references.
> We need to replace that deployment code with the stuff in DeployableChain
> (Phase uses DeployableChain as its implementation).
As I understood you are going to replace the existing Handler order
processing logic with a new logic you have written. In this case isn't it
worth to discuss this with a new thread and explain your new algorithm in a
separate thread?
>
>
> Did you file a JIRA on this yet?
No. if it is written to work like that then that is not an issue.
> If not please do, and assign it to me, I'll get it fixed over the weekend.
thanks,
Amila.
>
>
> Thanks,
> --Glen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Amila Suriarachchi,
WSO2 Inc.
